Apple CEO Cook Gets Deposition Order in Antitrust Case

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Tim Cook, Apple Inc.’s chief
executive officer, was ordered to give a deposition in a lawsuit
claiming the iPhone maker and other technology companies
violated antitrust laws by entering into agreements to not
recruit each other’s employees.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California,
issued the order at a hearing yesterday over the objections of
George Riley, a lawyer representing Apple. The other defendants
in the case include Google Inc., Intel Corp., Adobe Systems
Inc., Walt Disney Co.’s Pixar animation unit, Intuit Inc. and
Lucasfilm Ltd.

The lawsuit before Koh is a private lawsuit brought on
behalf of employees that mirrors claims the companies settled
with the U.S. Justice Department in 2010 following a probe. The
case claims the companies agreed to refrain from placing “cold
calls” to lure workers from competitors.

Koh told lawyers yesterday that Apple founder Steve Jobs
was copied on e-mails at issue in the case, and that she found
it “hard to believe” that Cook, as Apple’s chief operating
officer at the time in question, wouldn’t have been consulted
about such agreements.

The judge said she was disappointed that senior executives
at the companies involved hadn’t been deposed before yesterday’s
hearing over whether she should certify the case as a group
lawsuit. The class would include different categories of
employees whose incomes, their lawyers argue, were artificially
reduced because of the collusion. Koh didn’t rule on class
certification.

Google Chairman

At Koh’s request, the lawyers also agreed that Google
Chairman Eric Schmidt will be deposed Feb. 20. Lawyers for the
employees will depose Intel Chief Executive Officer Paul
Otellini later this month, lawyers said.

Robert Mittelstaedt, a lawyer representing the companies,
argued that the employees’ lawyers haven’t demonstrated that
everyone in the proposed class was hurt by any such agreements,
as is required for the group to be certified as a class.

“You can’t assume that if someone got a raise from a cold
call” that the effect of that negotiation would “ripple to
everybody else,” Mittelstaedt told Koh. “Why would a company
give a raise to someone in a negotiation if it knew it had to
turn around and give a raise to everyone else?”

The proposed class of employees includes engineers, sous
chefs, administrative assistants and others, because all of the
employees were harmed by the companies’ conduct and will rely on
the same evidence to prove their damages, lawyers for the
workers said in a court filing.

In the 2010 settlement, the Justice Department said the
companies kept do-not-call lists to avoid competitive
recruiting, and that such agreements restrained competition,
which hurt employees.

Adobe, Apple

The government said that in May 2005, senior Adobe and
Apple executives agreed not to cold-call each other’s employees.
Adobe was placed on an internal Apple “do-not-call” list,
while Adobe put Apple on a list of “companies that are off-limits,” according to the department.

Apple and Google had each other on internal do-not-call
lists starting in 2006, according to the department. The next
year, Apple and Pixar agreed not to call each other’s staffs,
and Google entered into no-cold-calling agreements with Intel
and Intuit, the department said.

The San Jose case is In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation, 11-2509, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California (San Jose). The previous case is U.S. v. Adobe
Systems, 10-cv-1629, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
(Washington).